Money vs. Ethics

Which is more valuable ...material things or the ethical life?
Of course, it is not a choice between one or the other: a person - whether very wealthy or very poor - can be highly ethical. Or both may exhibit, and/or exemplify, immorality.
In the U.S.A. we have made money into a god. When you ask someone how they're doing, they primarily think in material terms; everything else is secondary.

Let's examine the benefits of each:
MONEY gets you all the food you can eat; a nice place to live; a new car every year; freedom, and (say if you buy a seat in Congress, or a media conglomerate, or a dictatorship) even power.

ETHICS. Decency, civility, a good character, a sense of responsibility, a disposition to kindness, integrity, cooperativeness, a capacity to focus on a project you enjoy, and to be creative, to, in that sense, have 'a work ethic'; an attitude of gratitude; caring about a healthy life and a healthy world; a love of learning; an appreciation of beauty, truth, and goodness; a striving to add value, to be constructive; in other words, by being ethical you can get some enduring human relationships, some love, a high quality of life, a sense of well-being.

Being ethical IS rewarding, but most people do not yet understand or appreciate that. It has been said 'they seem (morally) asleep or dead.'

Conclusion: It is ignorance of the long-term benefits of being ethical that keeps us all from having a better world.

Many people will do anything for money. Why? Because they see immediate benefits.

My argument here is that being ethical is MORE VALUABLE for us than the pursuit of materialism. [I can demonstrate this fact by the employment of Logic, but a display of logical symbols tends to put people off: so many of us have a math-phobia. So I'll just claim it. Reason without emotion and emphasis is just not convincing.]

Granted, a lot of people get rich because they were unethical. They did whatever they could get away with. You all know about such business practices and have probably experienced some in your life - in which you were the victim ....I mean the customer, or the patient. Many, if not most, politicians can be "bought."

Why do they pursue monetary gain or profit about everything?
It is because they are vividly aware of the benefits of money !

However, keep in mind that as a species we are getting better, ethically-speaking. Until about 1800 human beings were a bunch of savages, primitive and ruthless. Slavery was universally present. We tore limbs off people, stretched them on a rack, burned heretics slowly to death on a stake, drowned women - charging them with being "witches." Some of these practices persist even today in Saudi Arabia where they will cut fingers off your hand if you happen to commit what they consider to be a transgression. Also in Myanmar (formerly Burma.) It's not too pleasant to live in North Korea either. Keep in mind that three percent of the U.S. population are sociopaths, some of them highly-skilled, and may be prominent members of society. They have an inability to care or to empathize with the suffering of others. {One of them even became Vice President. I shall not mention any names.}

Do you forum members here at least agree that being ethical is better than the love of money for its own sake? Which habits will you attempt to form? Will you dispel ignorance about the principles of Ethics?

I'd like to hear what you think about all this. Comments? Suggestions?

Hi Prof,

two questions:

First, did you think this throuh thoroughly:

Many people will do anything for money. Why? Because they see immediate benefits.

I mean: Money is just a means to buy something. If you are fixated on money, it is not because you see immediate benefits. Money itself is a realisation of the indirect relationship of people to goods, that is: They want money to buy something else than money with it.

Secondly, isn't it ethical to want to have money? I think our whole system of society is built on this principle. It works like that: If you want to get money you have to offer your help to other people or build/produce something that is of use for them. At least that is what is commonly said in defense of our socio-economical system. That means: the bigger your appetite for money is, the more ethical you are.

Best wishes
philohof

Hi Prof,

... It works like that: If you want to get money you have to offer your help to other people or build/produce something that is of use for them. ...That means: the bigger your appetite for money is, the more ethical you are.

Best wishes
philohof

In this society there are other ways of acquiring money. You may figure out a way to steal it. You may gamble. You may offer or accept a bribe. You may lie to your customers - or patients, or clients - or have other ways of deceiving them. You may adulterate, or produce something shoddy, designed to crumble the moment the warranty expires. Farmers have been known to destroy good food-crops so as to maintain prices. No Wall Street trader produces anything of true use to people. They do shuffle papers around. Brokers do run a casino so that you may play a (money) game; as they do so, they are keenly aware that most players will lose. The hedge-fund manager may write you a note occasionally telling you whether your account is up or down. This activity produces no real wealth.

I personally know friends who make their living by showing super-rich people how to avoid paying taxes. They are not producing real wealth either.

When a manufacturer automates and in doing so fires many employees, making no provisions for their transition to any other position nor to re-training, he is not doing the world much of a favor either. Yes, he makes more money but 100 people suffer, and can no longer afford to buy anyone's goods or services.

We need a Resource-based economy, a gift economy. Study up on alternative economies, priceless societies, where money and debt are things of the past. Learn about the Zeitgeist movement. Reflect on new perspectives to exercise your mind.

Perhaps this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w -
responds directly to the points you raise. Listen to it all the way through. Then let us know if it suggested any new ideas for you. Did it shed light on "money" and on "ethics"? Was it relevant?

Hi, Prof.

Everything a person does is for profit. Your pursuit of ethics is for profit.

According to the famous behaviourist B. F. Skinner:
"A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies.".

In other words, everything we do is the result of what we have learned to do by repetitive practice. Our internal wiring determines how we will respond to a given contingency. We are nothing more than machines. He says further:
"I did not direct my life. I didn't design it. I never made decisions. Things always came up and made them for me. That's what life is."

So, according to Skinner, your love of ethics is no more or less a virtue than another's love of money, because you are as helpless as they to act outside your programming. It was simply a fluke of reproduction that made the difference.

Cheers,
enegue.

It has been stated and agreed upon by many members here already that it is nearly impossible to gain a fortune in an ethical manner. Look at how the banks have treated the US citizens who bailed them out. Business loans have nearly stopped for the upcoming private sector.
And the banks also represent the most unethical principle imaginable. They make their wealth off of interest on loans, which means that they make money without having to work for it. Yet, when the public bailed them out, they themselves were charged no interest to the American people. And why? Because those who provided the legislature for the bail out were looking out for the rich (banks) rather than those who they were suppose to represent, the American people.
We no longer have a democracy through representation. US citizens live in a dictatorship led by big bank and corporate industry.
True American leaders, such as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, were the representation this country was intended to have. Both understood the harm to the average individual the banks could cause. Until we have leaders who put the will of the majority before the interest of the few, the United States will never be what it was intended to represent.

Fred Skinner was a friend of mine, and I miss him. He was soft-spoken, and he meant well. He gave me permission to reprint one of his papers in a book I published with the title SCIENCES OF MAN AND SOCIAL ETHICS (Boston: Branden Press, 1969). I vividly recall the time he gave me a tour of his labs in the basement of William James Hall, at Harvard, where he kept all those white pecking pigeons, working out those schedules of reinforcement, that helps Bally, Inc. design better slot machines - "better" for the casinos. I do not subscribe to Skinner's determinism or his view that we are entirely creatures of conditioning. I believe that once we catch on to the fact that someone is trying to shape our behavior we can defy that behavioral engineer and do the opposite of what he intends for us to do. I believe there are more modern, and more accurate theories of child-rearing than either his or Sigmund Freud's theory. To learn of one, see the early chapters of THE EMPATHIC CIVILIZATION.
Also, did you watch the video to which there is a link in my previous post? Did you listen to the professors in the first portion of it? Did you learn anything from it?

If you think my pursuit of Ethics is for profit, you have a very strange usage of the word, "profit.." It does not communicate with me. I forgive you for even implying such a thing. Yes, I will get some positive reinforcement every time I notice that Ethics is catching on, that people are doing acts of kindness, are volunteering their service, are getting along harmoniously, are reaching out to others in far-away places with strange-sounding names, etc. But that is in no way "profit." Profit, in economics, has a distinct definition: the difference between costs and sales price. I have nothing to sell. I am not commercial. I don't resemble your interpretation. If I were a 'smaller-minded person', I would resent it. I believe we have free will. We are free to choose. We can make sound decisions, and use good judgment. We are not strictly products of our conditioning. To explain why I say this would take a couple of new threads in the Metaphysics and Epistemology Forums, but if you read End Note 4 of the Unified Theory of Ethics document, you will acquire a better understanding of the Ethical frame of reference: -
http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf See pp. 63-67.

-- Updated Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:28 pm to add the following --

It has been stated and agreed upon by many members here already that it is nearly impossible to gain a fortune in an ethical manner. Look at how the banks have treated the US citizens who bailed them out. Business loans have nearly stopped for the upcoming private sector.
And the banks also represent the most unethical principle imaginable. They make their wealth off of interest on loans, which means that they make money without having to work for it....

Algo,

What you say is very true. Our intuitive sense of fairness is violated.

A good theory of ethics should give priority to human need over corporate greed.

How about this as a motto for the Occupy the streets movement: OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL

What's wrong with that?

The 99% will eventually succeed. Why? Because we are too big to fail.

Which is more valuable ...material things or the ethical life?
Of course, it is not a choice between one or the other: a person - whether very wealthy or very poor - can be highly ethical. Or both may exhibit, and/or exemplify, immorality.
In the U.S.A. we have made money into a god. When you ask someone how they're doing, they primarily think in material terms; everything else is secondary.

Let's examine the benefits of each:
MONEY gets you all the food you can eat; a nice place to live; a new car every year; freedom, and (say if you buy a seat in Congress, or a media conglomerate, or a dictatorship) even power.

ETHICS. Decency, civility, a good character, a sense of responsibility, a disposition to kindness, integrity, cooperativeness, a capacity to focus on a project you enjoy, and to be creative, to, in that sense, have 'a work ethic'; an attitude of gratitude; caring about a healthy life and a healthy world; a love of learning; an appreciation of beauty, truth, and goodness; a striving to add value, to be constructive; in other words, by being ethical you can get some enduring human relationships, some love, a high quality of life, a sense of well-being.

Being ethical IS rewarding, but most people do not yet understand or appreciate that. It has been said 'they seem (morally) asleep or dead.'

Conclusion: It is ignorance of the long-term benefits of being ethical that keeps us all from having a better world.

Many people will do anything for money. Why? Because they see immediate benefits.

My argument here is that being ethical is MORE VALUABLE for us than the pursuit of materialism. [I can demonstrate this fact by the employment of Logic, but a display of logical symbols tends to put people off: so many of us have a math-phobia. So I'll just claim it. Reason without emotion and emphasis is just not convincing.]

Granted, a lot of people get rich because they were unethical. They did whatever they could get away with. You all know about such business practices and have probably experienced some in your life - in which you were the victim ....I mean the customer, or the patient. Many, if not most, politicians can be "bought."

Why do they pursue monetary gain or profit about everything?
It is because they are vividly aware of the benefits of money !

However, keep in mind that as a species we are getting better, ethically-speaking. Until about 1800 human beings were a bunch of savages, primitive and ruthless. Slavery was universally present. We tore limbs off people, stretched them on a rack, burned heretics slowly to death on a stake, drowned women - charging them with being "witches." Some of these practices persist even today in Saudi Arabia where they will cut fingers off your hand if you happen to commit what they consider to be a transgression. Also in Myanmar (formerly Burma.) It's not too pleasant to live in North Korea either. Keep in mind that three percent of the U.S. population are sociopaths, some of them highly-skilled, and may be prominent members of society. They have an inability to care or to empathize with the suffering of others. {One of them even became Vice President. I shall not mention any names.}

Do you forum members here at least agree that being ethical is better than the love of money for its own sake? Which habits will you attempt to form? Will you dispel ignorance about the principles of Ethics?

I'd like to hear what you think about all this. Comments? Suggestions?

I am surpised to see the postings in this title-Money vs Ehtics.They are not contradictory or exclusevly separate.
Even if we ssume it as afact. the answer is again in a form of question--Animal vs Human ?If you think that to be human is to satisfy material needs 'only' then only money. If you think Human is different and superiour to animals then -Ethics.
In both the conditions no "Money vs Ethics, for animals only money(materials satisfaction) For Human "Money earned ethicaly".

I do not subscribe to Skinner's determinism or his view that we are entirely creatures of conditioning. I believe that once we catch on to the fact that someone is trying to shape our behavior we can defy that behavioral engineer and do the opposite of what he intends for us to do. I believe there are more modern, and more accurate theories of child-rearing than either his or Sigmund Freud's theory.

What you say here may be true for you, but it's clearly not true for everyone. Why do businesses spend so much money on advertising? Because it works well enough to justify the expense. You may be able to defy the behavioural engineer, but again that can be attributed to your genetic wiring. You have nothing that wasn't given to you or that wasn't derived from something given to you.

If you think my pursuit of Ethics is for profit, you have a very strange usage of the word, "profit.." It does not communicate with me. I forgive you for even implying such a thing. Yes, I will get some positive reinforcement every time I notice that Ethics is catching on, that people are doing acts of kindness, are volunteering their service, are getting along harmoniously, are reaching out to others in far-away places with strange-sounding names, etc. But that is in no way "profit." Profit, in economics, has a distinct definition: the difference between costs and sales price. I have nothing to sell. I am not commercial. I don't resemble your interpretation. If I were a 'smaller-minded person', I would resent it.

This is interesting, you have constrained the meaning of the word "profit" to monetary gain, but your qualification, "In economics", suggests you understand it has another use that you chose not to admit. Yes, profit also means: advantage, benefit, gain, which is not a strange usage at all. This is the meaning I like to attribute to the word, since it also encompasses the narrower meaning.

Your reply confirms the appropriateness of my usage because you identify the profit you derive from the pursuit of ethics as "positive reinforcement". Again, everything a person does is in pursuit of profit. You are no exception. We move about in three dimensional space only because there is somewhere we want to be, and we want to be there because we want to possess something, and that something we believe will be of advantage, of benefit, i.e. profit. Without profit (a goal, a destination, a purpose) there is no reason to move.

I believe we have free will. We are free to choose. We can make sound decisions, and use good judgment. We are not strictly products of our conditioning. To explain why I say this would take a couple of new threads in the Metaphysics and Epistemology Forums, but if you read End Note 4 of the Unified Theory of Ethics document, you will acquire a better understanding of the Ethical frame of reference: -
http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf See pp. 63-67.

I agree we have free will, but not in the sense that you describe, making sound decisions and using good judgement, observation would suggest this is the practice of the few, not the many. Free will, as I see it, for everyone, extends only to our capacity to recognise we are in trouble and to holler for help, which we are FREE to accept or reject. If the help that comes provides no means of acting counter to our natural inclinations then it should be rejected. Only when we find a source of help that enables us to act counter to our natural inclinations will we able to act unpredictably and so possess true freedom.

Cheers,
enegue.

... everything a person does is in pursuit of profit. You are no exception..... we want to possess something, and that something we believe will be of advantage, of benefit, i.e. profit. Without profit (a goal, a destination, a purpose) there is no reason to move.

I believe we have free will. We are free to choose. ... if you read the Unified Theory of Ethics document, you will acquire a better understanding of the Ethical frame of reference: -
http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf See pp. 63-67.

I agree we have free will...we are FREE to accept or reject..... Only when we find a source of help that enables us to act counter to our natural inclinations will we able to act unpredictably and so possess true freedom.

Cheers,
enegue.

Hi there, enegue

If you had read any of my works you would note that what you call "profit" I call "self-interest." Time and again, I say that we act out of self-interest, but that that doesn't mean we are selfish.

Cheers, Prof.


On the theme of Money and Ethics, a reader sent me this message with permission for me to share it with the public.

"Thank you for giving your perspective on ethics. Realize for most people ethics is more of a theoretical concept than their reality. Most people are confronted with many stressors that limit their ability to deal with ethics. Their daily life seems to be struggle to get by as best they can. Most people will take a moral shortcut to get their way.

"The only way to increase morality is to make it possible for people to live a moral life. Another critical factor is that everyone should have a mentor or someone who serves as a good role model. Right now there is a shortage of good role models to follow. Many sectors of our society are willing to do anything to get ahead in life even if its immoral."

"We see how lawyers, doctors, sales people and politicians sell us out for money. There is a lack of consideration for the consequences that follow. At this time some segments of our society are about to act out in an uncivilized way out of frustration."

He seems to suggest that the efforts we make to teach ethics is futile, an impossible task. I agree with those who, like W. S. Merwin, say : "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO TRY."

I hold that doing the impossible is more fun !!!

In that message he is of course NOT referring to the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is nonviolent and civil. It is an expression of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provides citizens with the right to assemble and the right to petition for redress of grievances. The Preamble to it begins with the phrase "To Provide for the General Welfare..." which indicates that the founders cared about the less fortunate and those at the bottom of the heap when it comes to access to money, as well as all the rest. So let's be concerned with Human Need rather than Corporate Greed. Let's work to see that there is equal opportunity for all.

Any (constructive) ideas??

I believe it is hard if not impossible to have good morals and money side by side. All that we call immoral stems from money. We kill for money, we steal for money, we hurt for, or because of money, we discriminate because of money. Some indirect effects is we are forced to compete because of money. Job interviews, school acceptances, awards, etc. Now on the surface someone in competition for a job interview seems like it is a normal act. It is not moral or immoral to want a job over someone else. On the other hand the bigger picture is you must keep someone else jobless in order for you to move forward. Indirectly we are putting people down all in the name of money. The medical field doesn't give you the most efficient cure they give you the most expensive and least effective cures. You can't even defend your rights properly if you don't have the money for a good lawyer. I believe a life where people act in a moral way most if not all the time would be a world free from money.

In this society there are other ways of acquiring money. You may figure out a way to steal it. You may gamble. You may offer or accept a bribe. You may lie to your customers - or patients, or clients - or have other ways of deceiving them. You may adulterate, or produce something shoddy, designed to crumble the moment the warranty expires. Farmers have been known to destroy good food-crops so as to maintain prices. No Wall Street trader produces anything of true use to people. They do shuffle papers around. Brokers do run a casino so that you may play a (money) game; as they do so, they are keenly aware that most players will lose. The hedge-fund manager may write you a note occasionally telling you whether your account is up or down. This activity produces no real wealth.

I personally know friends who make their living by showing super-rich people how to avoid paying taxes. They are not producing real wealth either.

Dear Prof,

it is hard to discuss anything with you: Here you are mingling ethics and law. Some of the practices you mention are legally forbidden, others not.

To help somebody to optimize his taxes is nothing to be disapproved in our society, may he be rich or poor.

I know the Zeitgeist-Movement a little bit, but the fact that you bring it into this discussion shows that you are not open to different arguments any more: You have got your opinion on what "real wealth" is and on how economy should work.

Well, I have nothing against the Zeitgeist-Movement either. I have nothing against idealists who try to make this world a better world. But with this kind of argumentation: "We need another kind of economy" - you mingle politics with ethics.

We cannot discuss anything if you are not willing or able to differenciate things, to distinguish on thing from another and keep them apart.

Best wishes
philohof

Aristotle, the founder of the field of academic ethics, taught in his academy that Ethics and Politics are very-closely related.

Let me clarify something. I have nothing against money. It is our relationship to money that can be the problem. The casino part of the financial industry operates on the emotions of Fear and Greed. These emotions keep us from being fully moral. The problem arises when we make money into a god. This is greed. When people think money is the highest value, they will do anything for money. This results in immorality. This corrupts a person.

Money is just a way of assigning value to goods and services. It is the debits and credits on a ledger. These days it is largely computerized; the calculations are done electronically. We almost have a Cashless Society. There are a few exceptions, especially in some 'mom-and-pop stores.' So money is a way of keeping score of how much labor and skill went into a product or service to the end-consumer. What is truly relevant here is the process of continuous value-creation: ...how a maximal quality of life results in a ripple effect, a multiplier effect that eventually provides greater efficiencies.

Do you know the difference between Efficiency and Effectiveness?
We are efficient when we do more with less material and effort. This in turn - if we have a good sense of values - will lead to greater effectiveness, which I define as resulting in better quality of life for an individual or group of individuals. E-Value becomes I-Value. This well-being is the whole point of efficient production. What good is efficiency if it doesn't result in more effectiveness? For more detail, and a clearer understanding of the process, see the thread with the caption Steps to Value Creation. Here is a link to it: - onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... amp;t=5405

Let me clarify something. I have nothing against money. It is our relationship to money that can be the problem. The casino part of the financial industry operates on the emotions of Fear and Greed. These emotions keep us from being fully moral. The problem arises when we make money into a god. This is greed. When people think money is the highest value, they will do anything for money. This results in immorality. This corrupts a person.
[/url]

Hi Prof,

thank you for your clarification, but I am afraid you are again mingling things.

Firstly, Aristotle was right for the polis. But we do not live any longer in a polis. A polis is a small community.

Secondly, the finance industry does not operate on the emotions of fear and greed. The finance system is a social system or a social game, which has the following rules: Who brings the most money has won! You cannot change the functioning of this system by changing the values of people. (If you try, the result will be, that you make losers in this system out of the persons you convince.) What you would have to do, is change the system, change its rules: You are taking a political/legal problem for an ethical one.

Thirdly, it could also be that you want to say, you want to change people's values in order to change public opinion in order to put pressure on politicians to change the financial industry and its rules. Ok., but in this case you are also not talking directly about ethics; you would be talking about the effect that ethical values should have on politics. (In this case the question will be: Which of all the ethical values can be processed by the political system? Probably not all of them.)

Fourthly, do you know what an ethical question in this context would be: How could a stock trader behave ethically in today's financial industry? Ethical behaviour is mostly ethical behaviour under unethical circumstances. Look at the example of Socrates for that.
This is the ethical question: How should we act under given circumstances!
And not, as you seem to prefer: How should we change the circumstances, so that acting ethically becomes easy and safe!

Best wishes
philohof

Let me clarify something. I have nothing against money. It is our relationship to money that can be the problem. The casino part of the financial industry operates on the emotions of Fear and Greed. These emotions keep us from being fully moral. The problem arises when we make money into a god. This is greed. When people think money is the highest value, they will do anything for money. This results in immorality. This corrupts a person.
[/url]

Hi Prof,

thank you for your clarification, but ... you want to change people's values in order to change public opinion in order to put pressure on politicians to change the financial industry and its rules. Ok....
Best wishes
philohof

Hi, philohof

I can see you have given some deep thought to these matters. Thank you for raising some fine issues.

Under any given circumstances the new paradigm for Ethics directs us to add value to the situation. The new book by Schoof & Demerest, ANSWERING THE CENTRAL QUESTION, explains how in greater detail.

I am not so much interested in change as I am in transformation. Do you know the distinction? (We are speaking Applied Ethics here. And it applies to politicians as well, for they are people too)

A change is an incremental alteration within the existing model. It is a shift in what we do within the old perspectives [such as Aristotle' Nicomacean Ethics; or in the kind of ethics taught in the schools today.]

Transformation means: the model changes. It's a shift in perspective. After being educated in the new paradigm for Ethics - which I am trying to acquaint folks with - they will want to add value in every situation in which they find themselves - perhaps by giving a sincere compliment, perhaps by upgrading their own skills (creating themselves) to get ready to 'give themselves away' by being responsible, by being of service. They will have a constructive, creative approach to circumstances, an openness to the universe, a civility. They will have a developed empathy and compassion. Their goal will be to be "a good person." They will want to live a meaningful life. Through education, and life coaching - which is a kind of adult education - their personality will have been transformed.

Yes, guilty as charged. In addition to being a philosopher I am also a pragmatist. Philosophers analyze concepts, they make distinctions, show similarities and differences, ask How? and Why?

Pragmatists want to get something done. They want to see achievement. They want to fulfill goals. I have a
goal for a more-ethical world. I'd like to see some progress.

I believe in inter-disciplinary work and research. I am careful not to be too rigid about not mingling things. For example, I hold that Neurology of the brain combined with Value Science (in the continental sense of "science" as a serious field of study resulting in cumulative knowledge) can make useful contributions to a theory of ethics. I am willing and ready to incorporate the work of Sam Harris and H. Schoof and P. Demerest.

I believe in inter-disciplinary work and research. I am careful not to be too rigid about not mingling things.

Hi Prof,

but I think you know what I mean by mingling: You cannot repair systemic faults by working on changing the attitudes of individuals.

And that seems exactly what you are trying to do: Applying ethics to politicians because they are persons, too. Yes, they are persons, but they are working in a political system whose exigencies they have to meet.

As for the book of Schoof & Demerest, what it promises to explain to us, is maybe better and more honestly explained by Fernando Savater's ETHICS FOR AMADOR. It seems to be possible to read parts of the book online.

More honestly I say, because after reading a book review on Schoof's & Demerest's book I have the impression that they are not after any value change at all. They promise people to achieve success and happiness after reading their book. This is exactly what you would promise to make somebody your client who values money higher than ethics.

Best wishes
philohof